The statement below is a response to Bodynamic Letter to the Ethics Committee of the European Association for Body-Oriented Psychotherapy.
Date: November 7, 2018
Dear Ethics Committee,
I would like to start my response from drawing ethics committee attention to the fact that Ms. Marcher and Bodynamic decided to structure their response as a personal attack against me.
Here is a partial list of words Bodynamic uses to describe me:
disturbed, unbalanced, angry, revenge-seeking, disgruntled former student, stalking Bodynamic, kicked a marble table, threw a chair, and broke a chair; He screamed wildly “look what you are doing to me!”, scurrilous attacks and lies about Bodynamic, trash the training venue and potentially harm others, falsely defaming Bodynamic, crusade against Bodynamic, “let sleeping dogs lie”, get revenge, to abuse his status as a student of Bodynamic, allegations of ethical transgressions on the part of Bodynamic are a sham, argument from someone in Junior High School: “So-and-so agrees with me that you are not a nice person so I am justified in not liking you.”
Marcher’s response is a perfect demonstration of Bodynamic Institute practice to lie, belittle and obliterate opponent’s dignity.
For Marcher, the world is white and black.
There is either a friend or a foe.
Marcher loves and adores friends.
But once Marcher places you in the box of an “enemy” – beware – she fights using all the methods she could find including destroying the person psychologically.
This is exactly how Marcher holds so many people she had already abused in total fear.
These people are so fearful of Marcher’s rage that they chose to quietly step aside rather than fight for their dignity.
This is the path she chooses.
The path of conflict and war is so much more familiar to Marcher.
Marcher flourishes in conflicts and traumatic energies.
Based on my experience, the path of conflict resolution when the conflict touches her deep inside is unknown to Marcher.
And this raises a question – how can an individual with such characteristics be a psychotherapist?
Does it surprise the ethics committee at all that while my complaint to the ethics committee, contains no derogatory words towards D.Marcher, the Bodynamic response has numerous derogatory words?
This how I end my ethics complaint letter:
“It has also been my experience that Bodynamic International has many beautiful things to teach and share with the world. If only the Institute could seriously consider criticism and feedback and move into the mindset of using this feedback to improve the quality of their offerings, both Bodynamic International and the psychotherapeutic community at large would greatly benefit.”
Please compare this to the barrage of personal attacks in the Bodynamic response letter.
I would also like to bring ethics committee attention to the fact that in my letter I stated numerous explicit complaints such as: “illegally recording and distributing recorded conversations without consent”
In their letter Bodynamic did not address a single explicit complaint, instead choosing to focus on destroying my character in the eyes of the ethics committee.
Moreover, Bodynamic had a choice of strategy. They could have offered to discuss our disagreements. They could have asked the ethics committee to find a moderator and mediate.
Bodynamic chose a different path.
A path of defamatory claims.
Is this behavior worthy of psychotherapists and of members of EABP?
Now, I would like to respond to Marcher’s allegation.
Based on ethics standards for the conduct of members of EABP, I assume that Marcher and Bodynamic have proof for all of the allegations they have made in their letter.
Below, I request Bodynamic to respond to the following questions:
- In its response, Bodynamic claims the following:
“In April 2017, Mr. Torgovitsky was asked to leave the practitioner training in Greece that he attended as a student because he refused to pay for the training and to sign a student contract, despite Bodynamic’s repeated requests that he do so. “
Please provide proof that I explicitly “refused to pay for the training.”
- In its response, Bodynamic claims the following:
“At that time, he asked to say goodbye to the others in the training. We were informed by a reliable source that Mr. Torgovitsky had intentions to trash the training venue and potentially harm others.”
Please provide sworn testimony in writing from the “reliable” source that I supposedly was planning to “trash the training venue and potentially harm others”.
As the ethics committee will see, this is one of Bodynamic’s and Marcher’s methods to provide an excuse for avoiding conflict resolution by personally attacking the opponent and making him look violent.
I ask Bodynamic to explicitly state who this “reliable” person was.
I would also like to see an explanation from that person how that person made a “reliable” judgment that I had intentions to “trash the training”.
To continue quoting Marcher, she states the following: “At that time, he asked to say goodbye to the others in the training. We were informed by a reliable source that Mr. Torgovitsky had intentions to trash the training venue and potentially harm others. For the sake of the safety of the students and the property of the coordinator, we did not allow Mr. Torgovitsky to enter the premises. “
This is a lie. By stating “He asked to say goodbye” and “we did not allow Mr. Torgovitsky to enter the premises”, Marcher implies and creates an impression that I attempted to enter the premises.
I never attempted to enter the premises.
I never asked Bodynamic permission to enter the premises. Since I already bought the ticket to attend the training, I emailed the students and said that I would like to say goodbye to them. I drove from Athens airport to the small town where training took place and waited for students to come out from the training facility. At all times I was on a public property and I never made any attempts to enter the property.
This lie contradicts EABP ethics principles and I would like Bodynamic to be held accountable for this lie.
- In Marcher’s response, she states:
“The feedback from those exposed to Mr. Torgovitsky’s scurrilous attacks and lies about Bodynamic was overwhelmingly positive and favorable to Bodynamic.”
- Please provide officially signed statements from these people
- Please state exactly what “lies” I distributed.
- If the response was “overwhelmingly” positive, this implies that some people were not positive or favorable to Bodynamic. Please state what exactly these people said. Once again please attach officially signed statement from them.
For the ethics committee, I would like to add that I am not surprised at all that many people in Bodynamic had a defensive reaction when they read criticism of their leader Marcher. Unfortunately, under Marcher leadership Bodynamic became more of a cult than a school of psychotherapy.
2. In her response, Marcher states:
“A year later, Mr. Torgovitsky initiated a public crusade against Bodynamic on the internet by falsely defaming Bodynamic to the broader body psychotherapeutic community. “
This is yet another example of Marcher’s attempt to spread lies and attack me personally, instead of engaging in conflict resolution.
What Marcher calls “defaming”, were specific facts of ethical transgressions. Marcher had an opportunity to address these transgressions in a mediation session with me; unfortunately, she forcefully rejected any communication in regards to resolving the conflict.
It shocks me that supposedly a well-trained psychotherapist ( together with an entire Board of Bodynamic psychotherapy institute) would be surprised that an individual she belittled, disrespected and refused to communicate with to resolve conflicts, would ultimately go public with all of her ethical transgressions.
3. In her response, Marcher writes:
“The feedback from those exposed to Mr. Torgovitsky’s scurrilous attacks and lies about Bodynamic was overwhelmingly positive and favorable to Bodynamic. No one believed him. They saw him as disturbed, unbalanced, and with a clear axe to grind against Bodynamic. “
- Please provide an official statement from all the people Marcher refers to confirm that they indeed see me as “disturbed”
- In the statement, I ask these people to clearly explain how they came to the conclusion I was “disturbed”
- If the response was “overwhelmingly positive”, there were some people who did not have a favorable view of Bodynamic. At the same time, Marcher states that “No one believed him”. Where is the logic here? Please explain.
4. In her response, Marcher writes:
“Just about the time we got ready to send our letter to you, the attacks stopped, so we made the decision to “let sleeping dogs lie” in the hope that the situation would calm down.
As much as I love dogs, I would like to ask the ethics committee – is it appropriate for a psychotherapy Institute to compare a human being to a dog?
This human being was also a former student of Bodynamic for whom Marcher provided psychotherapy (because foundational Bodynamic training has a lot of therapy). Is it appropriate to imply a comparison of this human being to a dog?
I would like to highlight the fact that this comparison of “sleeping dogs” very clearly demonstrates how Bodynamic and Marcher think of her opponents. Marcher ceases to consider them as human beings. She dehumanizes them as it makes it easy to treat the enemy as a dog.
Unfortunately, this is not just Marcher who thinks like that. According to her consistent mention of “We”, it is clear that there are more than one teacher and Board member of Bodynamic Institute who dehumanizes the opponent.
As you will see later in my letter, Marcher also exhibits clear signs of narcissism and her own grandiosity.
Narcissism, grandiosity and dehumanizing the opponent all come together and form the way Marcher and Bodynamic Institute deal with opponents.
And these are the people who train the next generation of body-oriented psychotherapists!
5. In her response, Marcher writes:
“The motivation and purpose behind Mr. Torgovitsky’s complaint is not to inform EABP about ethics violations but to get revenge against Ditte Marcher for discontinuing her professional association with him.”
I find it curious that supposedly highly experienced therapists can make the claim about one’s motivation and purpose with such a high level of certainty.
It is even more surprising to read this when I repeatedly asked for conflict resolution.
It seems that there is a failure here to differentiate between what Marcher thinks, hypotheses Marcher formulates and the actual reality which may differ from her hypotheses.
It would seem that therapists would know the difference.
And it seems that Marcher would know that it is practically impossible to infer another person’s motivation or purpose unless one engages in a deep therapy session. And even then…
In reality, I was not upset at all about discontinuing professional work with Marcher. In fact, it was a huge relief because observing Marcher’s regular rage attacks and screaming consumed a lot of resources and energy.
Over the years, I had numerous collaborators at some of the best academic institutions of US, such as Harvard, MIT, Brandeis, and Boston University.
Never in my life, I had to deal with such a barrage of misunderstandings, conflicts, suspicions, and rage.
Marcher is scared that people will steal Bodynamic methods from her and she will no longer be able to make money on it. Because of this fear she did not allow us to create written training materials for the veterans.
Training people without written materials is very complicated.
Not to mention that Bodynamic shock training is simply a mixture of different methods Marcher took from other modalities without referencing or attributing authorship.
So, it was truly a relief when I told Ditte that in 2017 my organization will be working independently from her and will stop using Bodynamic.
Since I was absolutely ok with finishing collaboration with Marcher, reading Marcher’s comment “to get revenge against Ditte Marcher for discontinuing her professional association with him “ reminds me of Marcher’s sense of grandiosity and narcissism. These are the qualities which are so common to cults and cult leaders.
6. In her response, Marcher writes:
“Further, his charge that Bodynamic refused to engage in conflict resolution with him is false. “
Marcher and Bodynamic invest a good chunk of time in their letter to differentiate between my conflict with Bodynamic and my conflict with Marcher.
I request Marcher to explain and point to where exactly in my letter I stated that Bodynamic refused to engage in conflict resolution with me.
I re-read my letter and found no such place. To be more specific, here is what I wrote:
“Throughout this conflict, I repeatedly proposed conflict resolution and mediation first to Ditte Marcher and later to Lene Wisbom, who represented the Board of Bodynamic International (hereinafter, the Board). Both Marcher and Wisbom repeatedly refused to engage in conflict resolution. I informed Marcher and the Board that unless we set up conflict resolution or a mediation session, I would have no other choice but to appeal to the Ethics Committee.”
As you can see I clearly stated in my letter that I requested conflict resolution with Marcher and Wisbom.
I would like to bring the ethics committee attention to this fact of Marcher changing the facts (claiming that I stated that Bodynamic refused to engage in conflict resolution with me) and then accusing me of lying.
This is one of the purest forms of manipulation.
7. In her response, Marcher writes:
“The reason there was no conflict resolution with Mr. Torgovitsky is because there was no conflict between Mr. Torgovitsky and Bodynamic. “
“The “conflict” to the extent one existed involved a personal and professional issue Mr. Torgovitsky had with Ms. Marcher outside of her capacity and role as CEO and teacher of Bodynamic. “
“Separate from Mr. Torgovitsky’s status as a Bodynamic student, Ms. Marcher had a professional association with Mr. Torgovitsky around providing training and support programs for traumatized soldiers in Ukraine. “
“Additionally, Ms. Marcher and others explained to Mr. Torgovitsky that Bodynamic educational programs are separate to Marcher’s work as a shock trauma trainer and therapist. “
Marcher and Bodynamic are trying to make a point that Bodynamic was not involved in Marcher’s work with Wounded Warrior Ukraine and Marcher was acting as a “private therapist” who collaborated with the non-profit by providing training.
This is actually not so.
This is a blatant lie.
Marcher was not a private therapist. Wounded Warrior Ukraine hired Bodynamic to provide Bodynamic shock training to veterans in Ukraine. On all of the training, Marcher presented herself as Bodynamic therapist and CEO of Bodynamic.
8. In her response, Marcher writes:
“ Next, Mr. Torgovitsky refused to sign his own student contract or pay his tuition “unless Marcher engage in conflict resolution with him.” Mr. Torgovitsky was informed that there was no conflict to resolve involving Bodynamic. “
This is not so.
In regards to the contract, I signed the contract and gave a hard copy to Marcher.
Later on, they started asking once again for a signed copy of the contract.
I interpreted this as their attempt to find another excuse to expel me from the training.
I request Marcher and Bodynamic to provide proof that I explicitly refused to pay my tuition.
In fact, this is a manipulation on the side of Bodynamic and Marcher. In its email to me, Board of Bodynamic informed me that I have to pay before the start of the classes. I already had tickets purchased to fly to Athens for training.
Several days before the start of the classes, I got a letter from Lene Wisbom informing me that I was expelled from the training.
This incident demonstrates that Board of Bodynamic can not even communicate in a coherent way via email and provide clear demands and then stick to them. They engage in self-contradictory behaviour.
I would like to emphasize that I never explicitly refused to pay for the training.
What I was refusing to do is to fall prey to Marcher’s and Bodynamic’s manipulative communication. And this is exactly why I was requesting them to agree to mediation.
Is this really too much to ask a psychotherapy institute for a conflict resolution?
9. In her response Marcher writes:
“Bodynamic training and his status as a student have nothing to do with her decision to discontinue her association with him in Ukraine which is not the subject of a conflict that can be mediated”
Please explain why the conflict between Marcher and Roman in regards to providing Bodynamic training to veterans in Ukraine cannot be “mediated”
10. In its response Bodynamic writes:
“To reiterate, Mr. Torgovitsky did not have a right to any mediation because there was never any conflict between himself and Bodynamic. What is there to mediate with a person who refuses to sign a contract?
Once again this is a perfect example of manipulative communication. Apparently, Bodynamic believes that there are certain pre-requisites to have a conflict mediation.
As Bodynamic clearly states, failure to sign a contract (that I had already signed by that point) disqualifies one from having a right for a mediation session with Marcher.
It seems to me that this statement alone should evoke many questions about the professionalism of Marcher and Bodynamic.
It is commonly known that one’s behavior is caused by one’s feelings, interpretations, values, beliefs, and many other factors.
How is it professional to disqualify somebody from conflict resolution based on his behavior (his alleged failure to sign a contract, which once again I did sign). And the behavior that in no way threatens Marcher or Bodynamic?
All I asked was a mediation session!
And I was repeatedly refused this!
How can these people teach and conduct psychotherapy?
Can you imagine the kind of harm they can bring to their clients?
“Mr. Torgovitsky attempted to take control of and modify key aspects of the training protocol developed by Marcher without the assent of Marcher and others involved, including Oleg Hukovsky “
“Ms. Marcher elected to discontinue her professional association with him as was her right because he insisted on modifying her work that was not supported by Ms. Marcher and others and because she no longer felt comfortable working with him. “
Please provide proof of the following:
- Mr. Torgovitsky “attempted to take control of”
- What are the key aspects of the “training protocol developed by Marcher” that Mr.Torgovitsky allegedly tried to modify?
- Please provide an official and signed statement from Oleg Hukovsky clearly stating and confirming all the details of the above accusation.
This is one of the most bizarre accusations and blatant lies I have ever seen from Bodynamic Institute and Marcher.
I would like to remind Marcher and Hukovskyy that all our meetings were recorded.
Now that I reminded Marcher and Hukovskyy about this fact, I am very curious to see how they will try to extricate themselves from the lies Marcher is spreading.
I am looking forward to seeing how Marcher and Bodynamic are going to justify this lie.
As I already described above, what happened, in reality, was that I informed Marcher about the organization’s decision to stop running Bodynamic shock trauma training in December of 2017.
It shocks me that Marcher’s narcissism pushed her to present this matter as her stopping the collaboration. And portraying me as trying to punish her for ending the collaboration at the time when I was the one who stopped the collaboration.
The level of Marcher narcissism and grandiosity is mind boggling.
12. In their response, Bodynamic writes:
“In November 2016, Mr. Marcher, Mr. Hukovsky and others had a meeting with Mr. Torgovitsky in Ms. Marcher’s home near Athens, Greece. At that meeting, Ms. Marcher and other associates explained to Mr. Torgovitsky that he was not authorized to unilaterally change the training protocol. Mr. Torgovitsky reacted with a violent outburst. He kicked a marble table, threw a chair, and broke a chair in Ms. Marcher’s home. He screamed wildly “look what you are doing to me!” At that time, in light of his breach of protocol and his violent reaction to being confronted, Mr. Marcher ended her association with Mr. Torgovitsky with the full support of her Ukrainian”
Once again this is another example of a blatant lie.
Please provide proof of the following:
- Who was present at the meeting
- Date of the meeting
- Official statements from people involved in this meeting providing details of the meeting and collaborating Marcher’s accusations
- Proof that Mr. Torgovitsky had “a violent outburst” and allegedly threw and broke the chair – please provide images of the broken chair.
- Do I understand correctly that all personal and professional communication between Marcher and Torgovitsky ended in November of 2016?
Once again these lies seem laughable to me because all of our meetings were recorded on the recorder per agreement of all partied involved.
It shocks me that Bodynamic and Marcher lie.
It is ironic that Marcher can not even lie in a coherent way.
13. “In reality, Mr. Torgovitsky was asked to leave Bodynamic for completely separate reasons. First, Mr. Torgovitsky refused to pay for Ukrainian students to attend the Practitioner Training in Greece in breach of his prior agreement to fund their education. Ms. Marcher made separate arrangements with those students both of whom signed student contracts and continued the training. “
I request Marcher to provide proof that Roman committed to funding these students education.
Marcher states that at least one of the reasons, Torgovitsky was asked to leave Bodynamic was because he “refused to pay for Ukrainian students to attend the Practitioner Training in Greece in breach of his prior agreement to fund their education. “.
I would like to draw the ethics committee attention to this statement. First, Marcher provides absolutely no background or context for this situation. Second, this statement sounds like it comes from a business, not a psychotherapy therapy training institute. For a psychotherapy training institute, it does not seem reasonable to expel a student and refuse conflict mediation because he does not pay for other students’ education!
While the reality was very different, just for the sake of the argument let’s just imagine that student A agreed to pay for students B and C. Then, something happens and student A does not pay for students B and C. There is obviously a problem that deserves communication and conflict resolution.
Bodynamic refuses the mediation. This raises a question – why would a psychotherapy institute refuse to communicate and resolve the conflict?
Bodynamic institute and Marcher used the situation with the two students as an excuse to kick me out from the training because I started raising questions about many incidents of their unethical behavior. I became a very much an inconvenient student. A whistleblower.
It seems to me that it is absolutely unethical for a psychotherapy training institute to expel a student because he did not pay for others.
This behavior does seem to be coherent with something that a business would do.
As long as I know Bodynamic is a business. And once I take this into account, then Bodynamic behavior, as a profit-maximizing business lacking any ethical and moral values, seems to be very logical.
But is this behavior ethical for a member of EABP?
As I stated earlier, I wrote the above for the sake of an argument. The simple reason being is that I personally never committed to paying for these two students.
These two students were veterans who graduated from Wounded Warrior Ukraine training. Our organization was intently focused on providing psychotherapy training to veterans. And this is why we sponsored a lot of their education programs even before this incident.
There was an agreement between the two veterans and the Wounded Warrior Ukraine organization that we will support financially their Bodynamic practitioner training as long as the organization had funds to do so.
In 2016 the organization acquired a grant from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). We hoped that NED would renew the grant. At the same time, we experienced severe financial troubles, one of the reason was that our director of training, Oleh Hukovskyy, M.D. was getting a monthly salary while failing to fulfill his responsibilities in conducting training for the veterans.
Marcher, Hukovskyy, and Kovalyk (a veteran studying Bodynamic) were all acutely aware of the financial problems the organization experienced.
I would like to state here that throughout our collaboration, I was not getting any financial compensation for my work. On the contrary, I invested my own funds. I also invested my time to fundraise for the salaries of Marcher, Hukovskyy, and Kovalyk.
At some point, it became clear that organization simply had no funds and that NED will not fund the organization in 2017.
I emphasize that Marcher was fully aware of the organization’s financial problems. In fact, Marcher was also on the Board of Directors of the Wounded Warrior Ukraine and we had a discussion in November of 2016 with Marcher, Hukovskyy and Kovalyk present.
There was a serious problem caused by a mistake that Hukovskyy and Kovalyk made. They invited veteran co-trainers to take part in a training and wrote a commitment letter from Wounded Warrior Ukraine to veterans specifying the financial compensation.
After they finished the training, Hukovskyy and Kovalyk realized that they had no funds to pay to veterans.
We met in Greece and they offered to go back on the agreement with veterans and tell them that the organization can not pay.
Just to give you the context – this was in November just before the Christmas holidays. All of the veterans involved in the training experienced severe financial struggles. Many of them were making $200-400 a month. Veterans and their families counted on these funds to get them through the holidays.
Instead of going back on the agreement with veterans, I suggested to Hukovskyy and Kovalyk that we should fundraise. I offered my assistance in engaging US Ukrainian community to fundraise.
Kovalyk and Hukovskyy did not want to do fundraising.
We took this issue to Marcher.
Shockingly, Marcher ultimately agreed with Hukovskyy and Kovalyk. They told me – Roman – you don’t understand – it is ok in Ukraine to promise to pay people and then not pay. Companies do it all the time.
How ethical is this?
Instead of contributing her own funds and instead of fundraising, Marcher chose the path of the least resistance – to fail to pay to some of the most traumatized and financially struggling veterans.
At the time Marcher was on the Board of Directors of the non-profit organization.
She had a responsibility to assure that no unethical actions are committed against people the organization helped.
In reality, she was the one who took an active part in promoting an absolutely unethical decision.
I told Marcher, Hukovskyy, and Kovalyk that I wholeheartedly reject their attempt to misplace their failure onto veterans. And the organization will pay to the veterans.
At this time, Marcher exploded in one of her frequent rage tantrums and screamed:
- If you are going to continue behaving like this, then I will leave Board of Directors of Wounded Warrior Ukraine
- This is your choice Ditte
- Then I am leaving!
This is how Marcher left Board of Directors of Wounded Warrior Ukraine.
Marcher usurps power. She can not handle when people disagree with her on serious issues.
She has very little capacity to negotiate.
All of the above happened in November of 2016.
In January-February of 2017, I started discovering multiple cases of ethical misconduct by Bodynamic and Marcher.
At the end of March of March 2017, Bodynamic started a series of actions aimed to force me to leave the training.
I would like to bring the ethics committee attention to another fact. The agreement about paying for the two veterans was not between me and the veterans; it was between Wounded Warrior Ukraine and the two veterans.
Even aside of the fact that Marcher knew very well of the financial problems Wounded Warrior Ukraine experienced, let’s just say that Wounded Warrior Ukraine failed to pay for the two veterans.
Now, when I take Bodynamic practitioner training, I am a student. I am not President of Wounded Warrior Ukraine.
Here is what Bodynamic did. They used the alleged failure of Wounded Warrior Ukraine to pay for the two students as an excuse to expel a student from the training.
Because the student is President of a non-profit that failed to pay for two veterans.
In the process, Bodynamic refused any kind of conflict resolution.
This seems to me is a very serious ethical transgression.
I would like to repeat here quote from Bodynamic’s letter:
“In reality, Mr. Torgovitsky was asked to leave Bodynamic for completely separate reasons. First, Mr. Torgovitsky refused to pay for Ukrainian students to attend the Practitioner Training in Greece in breach of his prior agreement to fund their education. “
14. In her letter Marcher states:
“Thus, the “conflict” Mr. Torgovitsky references in his letter was actually an attempt to abuse his status as a student of Bodynamic in order to continue his professional association with Ms. Marcher and to take over her trauma training. “
This once again demonstrated Marcher’s sense of grandiosity and narcissism.
Marcher observed my attempts to defend my dignity: first by requesting conflict resolution, then by waiting a year in the hope that Bodynamic and Marcher will calm down and agree to conflict resolution, and then finally appealing to the ethics committee.
How does she interpret my behavior?
She does not see an attempt to restore and defend my dignity in my behavior.
Just to remind you – dignity is a central concept in Bodynamic.
Instead, what Marcher sees is a “disgruntled” student who is upset because Marcher stopped her professional association with him, and he does everything possible to restore this professional association.
How narcissistic is that?
I request the ethics committee to look seriously at this expression of severe narcissism.
15. In her response, Marcher writes:
“Ms. Marcher responded by re-emphasizing both that (1) Bodynamic trainings and his status as a student have nothing to do with her decision to discontinue her association with him in Ukraine which is not the subject of a conflict that can be mediated and (2) she does not engage in conflict resolution on threat of punitive reprisals.”
This is yet another example of manipulation and blatant lies used by Marcher and Bodynamic.
I spent several months asking for conflict resolution without any threats of appealing to the ethics committee.
Only after my requests were repeatedly refused, did I state that unless we set up conflict resolution, I would have no other choice, but to appeal to the ethics committee.
16. In her response Marcher writes:
“First and foremost, we don’t make the representations he claims we make about the effectiveness of Bodynamic and there is no evidence put forth that we do. “
This is a very vague statement. I do not understand what exactly Bodynamic is refuting here. Please state exactly what “representations … about the effectiveness of Bodynamic” Bodynamic does not claim.
17. In her response Marcher writes:
“To reiterate, Mr. Torgovitsky did not have a right to any mediation because there was never any conflict between himself and Bodynamic. What is there to mediate with a person who refuses to sign a contract? “
After all the information I already presented, this claim is just another example of fact twisting and manipulation used by Bodynamic and Marcher.
As I read Bodynamic response letter, I still do not understand fully their logic.
They try to explain that there was no conflict between me and Bodynamic ( I already addressed the fallacy of this claim).
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that indeed there was no conflict between me and Bodynamic to resolve.
The letter seems to confirm that there was a conflict between Marcher, in her role as a therapist hired by Wounded Warrior Ukraine (just as a reminder, I already addressed the fallacy of the claim that she was hired as a private therapist since Wounded Warrior Ukraine hired Bodynamic).
But once again, for the sake of an argument, let’s assume that Marcher is right and there was indeed a conflict between her as a private therapist and Wounded Warrior Ukraine.
She explains this conflict by accusing me that I was trying to take over her training (which I as already explained is a blatant lie).
Once again, for the sake of an argument, let’s assume that she is right.
All of these assumptions still beg a question.
Bodynamic recognizes that there was a conflict – even if the conflict was about supposedly me trying to take over her training (once again a blatant lie)
So, please explain – why Marcher, as EABP therapist, refused conflict resolution in regards to this issue.
18. In its response letter, Bodynamic writes:
“Nonetheless, some research conducted about the efficacy of Bodynamic shock trauma training has been conducted by outside third parties. We did not commission this research and were not involved in generating the findings. The conclusions reached by the independent researchers about Bodynamic’s efficacies were theirs alone and not Bodynamic’s.”
- Please name these “outside third parties”
- Please state who commissioned this research
- Please state who was involved in “generating the findings”
- In regards to the study published on Bodynamic website (https://www.bodynamic.com/blog/overcoming-shock-trauma-and-ptsd-bodynamic-for-ukrainian-veterans/). This study analyzes data collected by Wounded Warrior Ukraine. Please explain the following:
- how did Bodynamic get access to the data
- who conducted statistical analysis
- who wrote the report
- who financed analysis
I would like to bring ethics committee attention that Bodynamic recently changed the publication (https://www.bodynamic.com/blog/overcoming-shock-trauma-and-ptsd-bodynamic-for-ukrainian-veterans/) by adding “authors” section to the study: Oleh Novak and Oleh Hukovskyy. Until recently, there was no statement of who authored this research.
I assume this was done after Bodynamic read my ethics complaint.
I ask Bodynamic to disclose the date when authorship information was added to the publication.
I also ask Bodynamic to explain why they made this change.
- In its response Bodynamic writes:
“As part of this “ethical complaint”, Mr. Torgovitsky uses gossip and innuendo about former teachers and former students of Bodynamic that “don’t like Bodynamic.” This looks and feels like the argument from someone in Junior High School: “So-and-so agrees with me that you are not a nice person so I am justified in not liking you.” What is telling is the way that Mr. Torgovitsky tips his hand about how the ethics complaint is nothing more than a personal attack against Ditte Marcher: “I am even more motivated to write this letter to the Ethics Committee with the understanding that Ditte Marcher has a prominent long-term pattern of suddenly cutting connection and expelling a number of former good friends and colleagues.” Rather than take responsibility for his actions that resulted in him being asked to leave Bodynamic, Mr. Torgovitsky is hiding behind this flimsy and false cover story that “I’m not the only one; See, Ditte did it to others too.” Again, apart from being totally irrelevant to an ethical inquiry, his gossip comes without any factual support. It is difficult to prove a negative. We reference it here because we think the inclusion of gossip in a complaint about EABP ethics violations says a lot about the motivation of the person bringing the complaint. “
This comment once again demonstrates Bodynamic strategy.
Instead of addressing and responding to specific allegations I expressed in my letter, they chose to vehemently attack me personally portraying me as essentially a nut case.
Their “Junior High School” allegation is especially surprising since I did mention by name at least one individual who was expelled by Bodynamic.
This individual is Erik Jarlnaes.
I have heard about many other people being expelled from Bodynamic. According to private conversations with them, I know that in some cases process of expelling was done so painfully and rudely that people were falling into deep depression.
People are not reporting numerous cases of ethical misconduct because they are scared of Marcher’s rage.
Therefore, I ask Bodynamic to prove that my allegations are indeed no more than rumors.
To do that, I ask Bodynamic to put together a list of all people involved with Bodynamic educational programs within the past 10 years (students & teachers).
I ask EABP to conduct impartial and neutral interviews with Bodynamic former and current teachers and students.
I ask EABP to conduct interviews confidentially so that interviewees feel safe to share their oftentimes sickeningly painful experience of working with Bodynamic.
I assure EABP that when EABP starts talking to people in private, you will be shocked.
I also ask Bodynamic to disclose how many people were expelled or left Bodynamic together with their names.
I also ask Bodynamic to explain what happened to the 10 co-founders of Bodynamic.
Their names were mentioned in Bodynamic training, but there is no reference to them on the website and no statement about their contribution.
Please also explain why there is no statement of contribution by Bodynamic co-founder Erik Jarlnaes on the website.
Lack of reference to Erik Jarlnaes seems to be a pretty clear case of academic dishonesty perpetrated by the Bodynamic.
I would like to finish this letter by reminding the ethics committee of the barrage of character vilification statements made by Bodynamic and Marcher.
For the sake of an argument, let’s accept that I am indeed a disturbed and revenge seeking individual. Marcher positions herself as world-renowned psychotherapist.
Marcher worked with me for over two years consistently presenting me as her “dear friend” and proclaiming what a wonderful and amazing person I am.
How come a “world-renowned” therapist could make such a severe mistake of treating “a disturbed” individual as an amazing person for two years!
If I am indeed so disturbed right now, then most likely I must have displayed certain signs of my “disturbance” that Marcher as a “world-renowned” therapist should have seen.
This riddle has two potential resolutions, either
- Marcher severely over-presents and over-markets her professionalism or
- Marcher lies about her accusations.